dmv wrote:
Basically, they want to reuse half the television spectrum for emergency communication systems, without risking damage to all televisions. That's the why, and that seems like a reasonable why to me.

agreed, but the method is the madness. There are probably a lot better ways to accomplish this without subsidizing the industry's transition.

I believe we're still spending $1b/month in Iraq. This is not a Congressional Issue like healthcare or even broadband internet access (do you really want the USGov to be your ISP?).

No. And that's not what I was suggesting with the $3B. But you can create incentives for entities to provide this. The g'ment is good at doing this, and being the tie breaker when standards conflict (not the standard setter mind you). This is how rail was developed. This is how electricity became ubiquitous. This is how the interstate system was developed. You could spend $3B on getting broadband policy set up and do a lot of good. Right now it's not even on the damn radar. Right now the FCC has done more damage to broadband deployment and ubiquity than anything.

Given that television content (and nearly all media content ) will be packetized inside of 5 years organically

Source? That's a very bold assertion if I understand what you are saying, and I would want a reputable citation before I accepted it.

Is this similar to Bucy's assertion that this isn't worth the hassle considering 80% of televisions get their signals from terrestrial broadcast? Why bother upgrading the signals if you can just download it over the internet?

Similar. I point here as an example of how this is developing. But one only needs to look at the music industry and how quickly that changed (despite the continual dragging of feet and silly games) to a rapidly all digital distribution model. TV and pretty much any content will virtually all be packetized inside 5 years. I believe it will actually spur on bigger profits and more opportunities for content producers because it is a much more scalable distribution model and the costs are next to nill if you do it properly. The worry of mass piracy is ridiculous. iTunes Music Store proves that there's a balance that consumers are willing to pay for content. The previous model was that content producers (record lables) were overcharging the market. The same is happening with television and movie content. The consumer is not willing to have ads on paid dvds or put up with 10 minutes of commercials during a 30 minute television show. The balance needs to be reset and this will drive digital distribution of content.

My more specific point here though is that spending that $3B on transitioning broadcast television is, imo, a waste of funds. Of course compared to the waste of funds on other things the government is doing (universal service fee, Iraq war, homeland security depart, etc), it's minor in comparison. But any waste is not good.

RE: Senate Sets 2009 Digital TV Deadline - Yahoo! News